ok will ..i think your are concerned about your proyect ,solar
concentrator...i think is a good think that your are working in...but it
just cover a part of the needs...for sunny communities in the third
world,is good enought...a what about no sunny places???and isolated places?
> I'm not convinced that if electrogravitics or something of the sort is
> successful that it could generate as much energy as concentrating the sun's
> energy directly. But could it potentially store the energy somehow for use
> during non light hours? Is anyone aware of any solutions, research that has
> been done (or is ongoing) on sustainable ways of storing energy? Links?
> On 28 April 2012 13:05, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis <xekou...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> Jose, I was mostly talking about the general question of how we approach
>> new ideas and the difficulties that arise when you are not 'mainstream'. So
>> even if I might not think that this invention will work, only by doing what
>> you do, ie checking for yourself, you can be certain.
>> Being a scientist means being open minded and a sceptic at the same time.
>> 2012/4/28 Alvaro F. Boirac <alphy...@gmail.com>
>>> Jose,
>>> but anyway you cant say that it works or not till you have the
>>>> experiment on your hands...and that is what im doing
>>>> As a scientist I think that's the best thing you should do. I think
>>> it's very unlikely you'll find something new with a setup involving only
>>> electromagnetism at room temperature.
>>> However I don't agree with Nikolay: People should research things for
>>> themselves, question scientific laws and keep an open mind. (that's what
>>> real scientists do as well: experiments to disprove existing laws)
>>> You will probably learn something about electronics, magnetism, and
>>> motors. (one word of caution: don't invest your own money in a venture
>>> until you have tested things yourself).
>>> I look forward to your results,
>>> Alvaro.
>>> On 28 April 2012 09:42, Jose Bravo <monove...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> well...is enought talking for this week,the next week a will have the
>>>> first results...i hope..so now i going to try to understand what exactly
>>>> electricity is and apply it..see youuuuuu!!
>>>>> alvaro..every hard disk contain the same magnet and nobody thinks
>>>>> about that due to the advantage for the planet is..and the magnets that im
>>>>> using are so small that you can make 20 with a hard disk magnet,,.anyway if
>>>>> this works,,,we can recicle them from HD...happy now? i do.....
>>>>> apostolis...learn to read,i said that they are No making claims..
>>>>> anyway is good to know that there is false results and slams...that
>>>>> can cover the real one from unwanted atention
>>>>> but anyway you cant say that it works or not till you have the
>>>>> experiment on your hands...and that is what im doing
>>>>> is there something more scientific than that??
>>>>> if the results said ...yea it works...im gonna fucking use it,no
>>>>> matter if i know the name of the energy source or not,if i can make a
>>>>> theory or not,if it fits with nowdays science or not
>>>>> i dont going to pay for a electric bill when the space itself is a
>>>>> kind of energy...as everything else
>>>>> if enstein failed in something is not my f...bussiness
>>>>> THE EXISTENCE OF EMPTYNESS IS A F...... CONTRADICTION
>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTbFfEEE_qU&feature=related >>>>>> Sorry if i didnt make myself clear. I thought that if we apply the same
>>>>>> principle as in this video with a circular rail then the motion might
>>>>>> remain constant. Now attach a mechanical arm to the bearing or wheel
>>>>>> driving the motor in the middle.
>>>>>> >> If forward propulsion can be achieved with magnets and ballbearings
>>>>>> What exactly do you mean? Are you talking about a normal electrical
>>>>>> motor?
>>>>>> >> A ball or wheel with magnets on either side attached to an arm
>>>>>> driving the motor in the middle.
>>>>>> By an arm, do you mean a human arm with a hand, like the guy in the
>>>>>> video??
>>>>>> Or is it also a normal electrical motor?
>>>>>> On 28 April 2012 07:57, kamala108 freitag <kam...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> Fantastic video Will, I would love to build this on a large scale
>>>>>> and then spread the news like wildfire. If forward propulsion can be
>>>>>> achieved with magnets and ballbearings the why not apply the same principle
>>>>>> but in a circular motion. A ball or wheel with magnets on either side
>>>>>> attached to an arm driving the motor in the middle.
>>>>>> > I'm 99% skeptical (how about improving solar concentrators instead?)
>>>>>> > but thought I'd post it in here incase anyone fancies shedding some
>>>>>> > rational, logical thoughts on the matter (again:)..
For financially poor countries that are rich in sunlight:) Yes, to start
with if we lightened the burden of fossil fuel consumption in the sun belt
by concentrating solar then fossil fuels would last a lot longer in less
sunny and isolated places. Not to mention the huge reduction in pollution.
If solar concentration is successful in the sun belt there could be work
done to distribute it to non sunny places, maybe though sustainable
storage? That's one of the reasons I'm asking if anyone is aware of any
such projects.
> ok will ..i think your are concerned about your proyect ,solar
> concentrator...i think is a good think that your are working in...but it
> just cover a part of the needs...for sunny communities in the third
> world,is good enought...a what about no sunny places???and isolated
> places?
>> I'm not convinced that if electrogravitics or something of the sort is
>> successful that it could generate as much energy as concentrating the sun's
>> energy directly. But could it potentially store the energy somehow for use
>> during non light hours? Is anyone aware of any solutions, research that has
>> been done (or is ongoing) on sustainable ways of storing energy? Links?
>> On 28 April 2012 13:05, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis <xekou...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>> Jose, I was mostly talking about the general question of how we approach
>>> new ideas and the difficulties that arise when you are not 'mainstream'. So
>>> even if I might not think that this invention will work, only by doing what
>>> you do, ie checking for yourself, you can be certain.
>>> Being a scientist means being open minded and a sceptic at the same time.
>>> 2012/4/28 Alvaro F. Boirac <alphy...@gmail.com>
>>>> Jose,
>>>> but anyway you cant say that it works or not till you have the
>>>>> experiment on your hands...and that is what im doing
>>>>> As a scientist I think that's the best thing you should do. I think
>>>> it's very unlikely you'll find something new with a setup involving only
>>>> electromagnetism at room temperature.
>>>> However I don't agree with Nikolay: People should research things for
>>>> themselves, question scientific laws and keep an open mind. (that's what
>>>> real scientists do as well: experiments to disprove existing laws)
>>>> You will probably learn something about electronics, magnetism, and
>>>> motors. (one word of caution: don't invest your own money in a venture
>>>> until you have tested things yourself).
>>>> I look forward to your results,
>>>> Alvaro.
>>>> On 28 April 2012 09:42, Jose Bravo <monove...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> well...is enought talking for this week,the next week a will have the
>>>>> first results...i hope..so now i going to try to understand what exactly
>>>>> electricity is and apply it..see youuuuuu!!
>>>>>> alvaro..every hard disk contain the same magnet and nobody thinks
>>>>>> about that due to the advantage for the planet is..and the magnets that im
>>>>>> using are so small that you can make 20 with a hard disk magnet,,.anyway if
>>>>>> this works,,,we can recicle them from HD...happy now? i do.....
>>>>>> apostolis...learn to read,i said that they are No making claims..
>>>>>> anyway is good to know that there is false results and slams...that
>>>>>> can cover the real one from unwanted atention
>>>>>> but anyway you cant say that it works or not till you have the
>>>>>> experiment on your hands...and that is what im doing
>>>>>> is there something more scientific than that??
>>>>>> if the results said ...yea it works...im gonna fucking use it,no
>>>>>> matter if i know the name of the energy source or not,if i can make a
>>>>>> theory or not,if it fits with nowdays science or not
>>>>>> i dont going to pay for a electric bill when the space itself is a
>>>>>> kind of energy...as everything else
>>>>>> if enstein failed in something is not my f...bussiness
>>>>>> THE EXISTENCE OF EMPTYNESS IS A F...... CONTRADICTION
>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTbFfEEE_qU&feature=related >>>>>>> Sorry if i didnt make myself clear. I thought that if we apply the same
>>>>>>> principle as in this video with a circular rail then the motion might
>>>>>>> remain constant. Now attach a mechanical arm to the bearing or wheel
>>>>>>> driving the motor in the middle.
>>>>>>> >> If forward propulsion can be achieved with magnets and
>>>>>>> ballbearings
>>>>>>> What exactly do you mean? Are you talking about a normal electrical
>>>>>>> motor?
>>>>>>> >> A ball or wheel with magnets on either side attached to an arm
>>>>>>> driving the motor in the middle.
>>>>>>> By an arm, do you mean a human arm with a hand, like the guy in the
>>>>>>> video??
>>>>>>> Or is it also a normal electrical motor?
>>>>>>> On 28 April 2012 07:57, kamala108 freitag <kam...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> Fantastic video Will, I would love to build this on a large scale
>>>>>>> and then spread the news like wildfire. If forward propulsion can be
>>>>>>> achieved with magnets and ballbearings the why not apply the same principle
>>>>>>> but in a circular motion. A ball or wheel with magnets on either side
>>>>>>> attached to an arm driving the motor in the middle.
>>>>>>> > I'm 99% skeptical (how about improving solar concentrators
>>>>>>> instead?)
>>>>>>> > but thought I'd post it in here incase anyone fancies shedding some
>>>>>>> > rational, logical thoughts on the matter (again:)..
Other thing are the
supercapacitors<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LzcGXHjpdM>,
but those should be really big. I think we should be very concentrated in
solving the energy production issues, as we can not continue polluting the
environment.
Hey Jose...will you make a demonstration of your energy device on your way
back to Spain? it would be nice if we have a "free energy" workshop at Open
E Land!![?]
Best
Ezequiel
2012/4/29 Will Cleaver <willclea...@gmail.com>
> For financially poor countries that are rich in sunlight:) Yes, to start
> with if we lightened the burden of fossil fuel consumption in the sun belt
> by concentrating solar then fossil fuels would last a lot longer in less
> sunny and isolated places. Not to mention the huge reduction in pollution.
> If solar concentration is successful in the sun belt there could be work
> done to distribute it to non sunny places, maybe though sustainable
> storage? That's one of the reasons I'm asking if anyone is aware of any
> such projects.
> And a combination of those, what we are talking about here and my work
> with solar concentration got me thinking about the storage side of things.
> On 28 April 2012 23:23, Jose Bravo <monove...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ok will ..i think your are concerned about your proyect ,solar
>> concentrator...i think is a good think that your are working in...but it
>> just cover a part of the needs...for sunny communities in the third
>> world,is good enought...a what about no sunny places???and isolated
>> places?
>>> I'm not convinced that if electrogravitics or something of the sort is
>>> successful that it could generate as much energy as concentrating the sun's
>>> energy directly. But could it potentially store the energy somehow for use
>>> during non light hours? Is anyone aware of any solutions, research that has
>>> been done (or is ongoing) on sustainable ways of storing energy? Links?
>>> On 28 April 2012 13:05, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis <xekou...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>> Jose, I was mostly talking about the general question of how we
>>>> approach new ideas and the difficulties that arise when you are not
>>>> 'mainstream'. So even if I might not think that this invention will work,
>>>> only by doing what you do, ie checking for yourself, you can be certain.
>>>> Being a scientist means being open minded and a sceptic at the same
>>>> time.
>>>> 2012/4/28 Alvaro F. Boirac <alphy...@gmail.com>
>>>>> Jose,
>>>>> but anyway you cant say that it works or not till you have the
>>>>>> experiment on your hands...and that is what im doing
>>>>>> As a scientist I think that's the best thing you should do. I think
>>>>> it's very unlikely you'll find something new with a setup involving only
>>>>> electromagnetism at room temperature.
>>>>> However I don't agree with Nikolay: People should research things for
>>>>> themselves, question scientific laws and keep an open mind. (that's what
>>>>> real scientists do as well: experiments to disprove existing laws)
>>>>> You will probably learn something about electronics, magnetism, and
>>>>> motors. (one word of caution: don't invest your own money in a venture
>>>>> until you have tested things yourself).
>>>>> I look forward to your results,
>>>>> Alvaro.
>>>>> On 28 April 2012 09:42, Jose Bravo <monove...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> well...is enought talking for this week,the next week a will have the
>>>>>> first results...i hope..so now i going to try to understand what exactly
>>>>>> electricity is and apply it..see youuuuuu!!
>>>>>>> alvaro..every hard disk contain the same magnet and nobody thinks
>>>>>>> about that due to the advantage for the planet is..and the magnets that im
>>>>>>> using are so small that you can make 20 with a hard disk magnet,,.anyway if
>>>>>>> this works,,,we can recicle them from HD...happy now? i do.....
>>>>>>> apostolis...learn to read,i said that they are No making claims..
>>>>>>> anyway is good to know that there is false results and slams...that
>>>>>>> can cover the real one from unwanted atention
>>>>>>> but anyway you cant say that it works or not till you have the
>>>>>>> experiment on your hands...and that is what im doing
>>>>>>> is there something more scientific than that??
>>>>>>> if the results said ...yea it works...im gonna fucking use it,no
>>>>>>> matter if i know the name of the energy source or not,if i can make a
>>>>>>> theory or not,if it fits with nowdays science or not
>>>>>>> i dont going to pay for a electric bill when the space itself is a
>>>>>>> kind of energy...as everything else
>>>>>>> if enstein failed in something is not my f...bussiness
>>>>>>> THE EXISTENCE OF EMPTYNESS IS A F...... CONTRADICTION
>>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTbFfEEE_qU&feature=related >>>>>>>> Sorry if i didnt make myself clear. I thought that if we apply the same
>>>>>>>> principle as in this video with a circular rail then the motion might
>>>>>>>> remain constant. Now attach a mechanical arm to the bearing or wheel
>>>>>>>> driving the motor in the middle.
>>>>>>>> >> If forward propulsion can be achieved with magnets and
>>>>>>>> ballbearings
>>>>>>>> What exactly do you mean? Are you talking about a normal
>>>>>>>> electrical motor?
>>>>>>>> >> A ball or wheel with magnets on either side attached to an arm
>>>>>>>> driving the motor in the middle.
>>>>>>>> By an arm, do you mean a human arm with a hand, like the guy in the
>>>>>>>> video??
>>>>>>>> Or is it also a normal electrical motor?
>>>>>>>> On 28 April 2012 07:57, kamala108 freitag <kam...@live.co.uk>wrote:
>>>>>>>> Fantastic video Will, I would love to build this on a large scale
>>>>>>>> and then spread the news like wildfire. If forward propulsion can be
>>>>>>>> achieved with magnets and ballbearings the why not apply the same principle
>>>>>>>> but in a circular motion. A ball or wheel with magnets on either side
>>>>>>>> attached to an arm driving the motor in the middle.
>>>>>>>> > I'm 99% skeptical (how about improving solar concentrators
>>>>>>>> instead?)
>>>>>>>> > but thought I'd post it in here incase anyone fancies shedding
>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>> > rational, logical thoughts on the matter (again:)..
On 29 April 2012 16:28, Ezequiel <vha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Other thing are the supercapacitors<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LzcGXHjpdM>,
> but those should be really big. I think we should be very concentrated in
> solving the energy production issues, as we can not continue polluting the
> environment.
Why supercapacitors? They have the worst cost per energy and energy to
volume ratio for storing electric energy.
By now........................but as all pointed here..are suggestions of
alternatives. I supposed it;s the same as batteries, but as you can see,
current batteries technology has increased charge capacity, problem is that
it's a patented tech.
Anyways...I like more the idea of Hydrogen, as pointed in the book. With a
Solar Fire we could be capable of producing electrolisys and make hidrogen,
that way energy can be stored. Now the thing would be to know how that tech
works..and/or make it open source.
> On 29 April 2012 16:28, Ezequiel <vha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Other thing are the supercapacitors<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LzcGXHjpdM>,
>> but those should be really big. I think we should be very concentrated in
>> solving the energy production issues, as we can not continue polluting the
>> environment.
> Why supercapacitors? They have the worst cost per energy and energy to
> volume ratio for storing electric energy.
Compressed air produced by wind/hydro-rivers can even be used to run
cars<http://www.mdi.lu/english/>,
or regenerate electricity.
Hydrolysis is not too hard as such (carbon rods, water, and a circuit).
But to make it efficient, and get a lasting anode/cathode there are
significant challenges: the right Ph and Pressure, expensive platinum
electrodes, storing the hydrogen in a container where the tiny H2 molecules
won't leak ... etc.
Of course there's the recent innovations from MIT (for an intro see
https://vimeo.com/8194089 ) using Cobalt Phosphate as anode ... but I think
the practical implementation must not be easy. It's probably promising
when energy prices keep rising.
There's also storing energy thermally (for example freeze a big chunk of
ice through the day, and then turn off your freezer through the night). Or
heat a large black surface, and release its heat through the night
(earthship style). And the extreme version is molten salt reservoirs (for
commercial solar thermal plants)
it's not electrogravitics ... but at least it doesn't requite a 20,000V
field to lift a small plate (as far as I've seen all the presumed
applications of it consume rather than produce energy).
On 29 April 2012 17:38, Daniel Connell <solarflower....@googlemail.com>wrote:
> By now........................but as all pointed here..are suggestions of alternatives. I supposed it;s the same as batteries, but as you can see, current batteries technology has increased charge capacity, problem is that it's a patented tech.
> Anyways...I like more the idea of Hydrogen, as pointed in the book. With a Solar Fire we could be capable of producing electrolisys and make hidrogen, that way energy can be stored. Now the thing would be to know how that tech works..and/or make it open source.
> On 29 April 2012 16:28, Ezequiel <vha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Other thing are the supercapacitors, but those should be really big. I think we should be very concentrated in solving the energy production issues, as we can not continue polluting the environment.
> Why supercapacitors? They have the worst cost per energy and energy to volume ratio for storing electric energy.
> Patented tech can not be used for personal use? I thought you could.
> Any patent experts ;)
> Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 29, 2012, at 6:18 PM, Ezequiel <vha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> By now........................but as all pointed here..are suggestions of
> alternatives. I supposed it;s the same as batteries, but as you can see,
> current batteries technology has increased charge capacity, problem is that
> it's a patented tech.
> Anyways...I like more the idea of Hydrogen, as pointed in the book. With a
> Solar Fire we could be capable of producing electrolisys and make hidrogen,
> that way energy can be stored. Now the thing would be to know how that tech
> works..and/or make it open source.
>> On 29 April 2012 16:28, Ezequiel <vha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Other thing are the supercapacitors<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LzcGXHjpdM>,
>>> but those should be really big. I think we should be very concentrated in
>>> solving the energy production issues, as we can not continue polluting the
>>> environment.
>> Why supercapacitors? They have the worst cost per energy and energy to
>> volume ratio for storing electric energy.
>> Patented tech can not be used for personal use? I thought you could.
>> Any patent experts ;)
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> On Apr 29, 2012, at 6:18 PM, Ezequiel <vha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> By now........................but as all pointed here..are suggestions of
>> alternatives. I supposed it;s the same as batteries, but as you can see,
>> current batteries technology has increased charge capacity, problem is that
>> it's a patented tech.
>> Anyways...I like more the idea of Hydrogen, as pointed in the book. With
>> a Solar Fire we could be capable of producing electrolisys and make
>> hidrogen, that way energy can be stored. Now the thing would be to know how
>> that tech works..and/or make it open source.
>> 2012/4/29 Alex Shure <etemu....@googlemail.com>
>>> On 29 April 2012 16:28, Ezequiel <vha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Other thing are the supercapacitors<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LzcGXHjpdM>,
>>>> but those should be really big. I think we should be very concentrated in
>>>> solving the energy production issues, as we can not continue polluting the
>>>> environment.
>>> Why supercapacitors? They have the worst cost per energy and energy to
>>> volume ratio for storing electric energy.
> Hydrogen production with electrolysis or pyrolysis is no good. You have > to use the hydrogen right away because its a very "escaping" gas (because > of its molecule diameter) and for the same reason its very difficult to > store it. The best technology available with hydrogen is fuel cells. Either > way its fun to "experiment" with production and direct use of hydrogen :P I > remember when i blew up a water bottle at the university's lab while i was > experimenting with hydrogen production, storage and...usage :P
Can you explain exactly how a fuel cell will solve the storage problem?
You still need to produce and store the fuel (hydrogen) before your
fuel-cell uses it, right?
Currently most Hydrogen used in fuel cells comes from fossil fuels (methane
reforming <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_methane_reforming>), it is
then stored in tanks, and then fed to the fuel cell.
So what do you mean?
On 30 April 2012 07:02, Nicko_Toka <nickot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hydrogen production with electrolysis or pyrolysis is no good. You have
>> to use the hydrogen right away because its a very "escaping" gas (because
>> of its molecule diameter) and for the same reason its very difficult to
>> store it. The best technology available with hydrogen is fuel cells. Either
>> way its fun to "experiment" with production and direct use of hydrogen :P I
>> remember when i blew up a water bottle at the university's lab while i was
>> experimenting with hydrogen production, storage and...usage :P
> You can produce hydrogen but generally you are using it in short time of > period so you don't actually store it. I didn't said that fuel cells will > solve the problem of energy storage (and more specific electric energy > storage) but that they are the most efficient current > technology commercially available that uses hydrogen. For me the most > efficient energy production is nuclear (both fusion and fission as well > chemical fusion as well (LENR)). Generally we luck technologically in new > and efficient energy storage technologies.
H2 is one of the most abundant elements in the universe. Simplicity being the moto, most likely is a good source, storage, maybe a reason to be so common.
We have a small hidrogin cell to experiment in openeland, need some distilled water and we will play with it.
Personally I think palladium is key and the fact it absorbs hidrogyn in solid state.
All the best!
Angel
On May 1, 2012, at 9:41 AM, Nicko_Toka <nickot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You can produce hydrogen but generally you are using it in short time of period so you don't actually store it. I didn't said that fuel cells will solve the problem of energy storage (and more specific electric energy storage) but that they are the most efficient current technology commercially available that uses hydrogen. For me the most efficient energy production is nuclear (both fusion and fission as well chemical fusion as well (LENR)). Generally we luck technologically in new and efficient energy storage technologies.
@Nikolas, Thanks for the clarification on storage. I understand now what
you mean.
>> For me the most efficient energy production is nuclear (both fusion and
fission as well chemical fusion as well (LENR))
What do you mean by efficient?
EROEI<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested>?
Environmental cost? Some form of availability?
Man made fusion currently takes more energy to produce than it gives out
(so it's not efficient)
and LENR has the same problem so far (I haven't seen any open demonstration
showing Energy In < Energy Out for a sustained amount of time).
@Angel, I look forward to your results on electrolysis.
The world produces almost 400t /yr of palladium and platium. With an
estimated 100,000t of available resources (economically attainable) it
should last
a good 250 years ... (of course add exponential growth ... and it ends this
century). But in any case it's an "abundant" resource compared to iron or
copper's production to reserves ratio.
So maybe it could play an important role in storage.
On 1 May 2012 08:41, Nicko_Toka <nickot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You can produce hydrogen but generally you are using it in short time of
>> period so you don't actually store it. I didn't said that fuel cells will
>> solve the problem of energy storage (and more specific electric energy
>> storage) but that they are the most efficient current
>> technology commercially available that uses hydrogen. For me the most
>> efficient energy production is nuclear (both fusion and fission as well
>> chemical fusion as well (LENR)). Generally we luck technologically in new
>> and efficient energy storage technologies.
> @Nikolas, Thanks for the clarification on storage. I understand now what
> you mean.
> >> For me the most efficient energy production is nuclear (both fusion and
> fission as well chemical fusion as well (LENR))
> What do you mean by efficient? EROEI<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested>?
> Environmental cost? Some form of availability?
> Man made fusion currently takes more energy to produce than it gives out
> (so it's not efficient)
> and LENR has the same problem so far (I haven't seen any open
> demonstration showing Energy In < Energy Out for a sustained amount of
> time).
> @Angel, I look forward to your results on electrolysis.
> The world produces almost 400t /yr of palladium and platium. With an
> estimated 100,000t of available resources (economically attainable) it
> should last
> a good 250 years ... (of course add exponential growth ... and it ends
> this century). But in any case it's an "abundant" resource compared to
> iron or copper's production to reserves ratio.
> So maybe it could play an important role in storage.
> On 1 May 2012 08:41, Nicko_Toka <nickot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You can produce hydrogen but generally you are using it in short time of
>>> period so you don't actually store it. I didn't said that fuel cells will
>>> solve the problem of energy storage (and more specific electric energy
>>> storage) but that they are the most efficient current
>>> technology commercially available that uses hydrogen. For me the most
>>> efficient energy production is nuclear (both fusion and fission as well
>>> chemical fusion as well (LENR)). Generally we luck technologically in new
>>> and efficient energy storage technologies.
> I'm 99% skeptical (how about improving solar concentrators instead?)
> but thought I'd post it in here incase anyone fancies shedding some
> rational, logical thoughts on the matter (again:)..
From the research and papers I've read nuclear takes MUCH more fossil fuel
energy to build and maintain than it can produce. And I wonder if that
would not be the same for hydrogen?
On 1 May 2012 10:47, kamala108 freitag <kam...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> > I'm 99% skeptical (how about improving solar concentrators instead?)
> > but thought I'd post it in here incase anyone fancies shedding some
> > rational, logical thoughts on the matter (again:)..
The Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) claims vary a lot: 1:3 - 1:20
are common things to see (but rarely less than one).
More info here: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3877
Overall I would say:
- Nuclear is very expensive (all costs taken into account: insurance,
decommissioning, desmanteling, mining, etc)
- Nuclear is not as reliable/safe as claimed (see my
tweet<https://twitter.com/#%21/Alphydan/status/197238808197074946>
)
- It means relinquishing power in favour of an extremely centralized and
complex organization.
- It assumes we can ensure a stable income / government / civilization for
a few hundred years ... quite unlikely!
- The fossil fuels needed to run it range from 5% - 40% of what a gas plant
uses anyway. [see refs. from oildrum link<http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3877>
]
(it also provides a wonderful baseload electricity, with very high energy
density/sq-meter once it's built, but not worth it in my opinion)
Back to small solar, wind, hydro ... and above all conservation!
On 1 May 2012 11:06, Will Cleaver <willclea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From the research and papers I've read nuclear takes MUCH more fossil fuel
> energy to build and maintain than it can produce. And I wonder if that
> would not be the same for hydrogen?
> On 1 May 2012 10:47, kamala108 freitag <kam...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>> > I'm 99% skeptical (how about improving solar concentrators instead?)
>> > but thought I'd post it in here incase anyone fancies shedding some
>> > rational, logical thoughts on the matter (again:)..
(The Thermal Problem is currently having some part re-written and edited a
little) (If you have any suggestions please comment).
As you'll see within the essays there are many references needed too. I
asked Eerik about them and he mentioned they are based on many figures
repeated in different sources. Me and Eva are working on getting the
references sourced to publish (watch the space)..
Hydrogen:
I've only read the wiki on hydrogen so still have lots of q's.. My
understanding is that it takes fossil fuels to produce? Can it be produces
without them? What about applying the comprehensive "ins and outs" question
to it; I'd be interested to know if at the end of the process the hydrogen
leaves us with more energy than it took to produce it? Or would it be a
case of centralising production to the area where the fossil fuels are
extracted and then transport the hydrogen from there, thus reducing the
amount of fossil fuels needed globally, but still relying on them.. I
realize with regards to hydrogen I may be asking the wrong questions here..
My research begins.. (I'm not asking for anyone here to answer these q's I
have on hydrogen, but if you have any useful links please post).
Will
On 1 May 2012 11:58, Alvaro F. Boirac <alphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) claims vary a lot: 1:3 -
> 1:20 are common things to see (but rarely less than one).
> More info here: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3877
> Overall I would say:
> - Nuclear is very expensive (all costs taken into account: insurance,
> decommissioning, desmanteling, mining, etc)
> - Nuclear is not as reliable/safe as claimed (see my tweet<https://twitter.com/#%21/Alphydan/status/197238808197074946>
> )
> - It means relinquishing power in favour of an extremely centralized and
> complex organization.
> - It assumes we can ensure a stable income / government / civilization for
> a few hundred years ... quite unlikely!
> - The fossil fuels needed to run it range from 5% - 40% of what a gas
> plant uses anyway. [see refs. from oildrum link<http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3877>
> ]
> (it also provides a wonderful baseload electricity, with very high energy
> density/sq-meter once it's built, but not worth it in my opinion)
> Back to small solar, wind, hydro ... and above all conservation!
> On 1 May 2012 11:06, Will Cleaver <willclea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> From the research and papers I've read nuclear takes MUCH more fossil
>> fuel energy to build and maintain than it can produce. And I wonder if that
>> would not be the same for hydrogen?
>> On 1 May 2012 10:47, kamala108 freitag <kam...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>>> > I'm 99% skeptical (how about improving solar concentrators instead?)
>>> > but thought I'd post it in here incase anyone fancies shedding some
>>> > rational, logical thoughts on the matter (again:)..
"I'd be interested to know if at the end of the process the hydrogen
leaves us with more energy than it took to produce it"
The answer is no, otherwise it will be a source of free energy (an
other one) : you make electrolysis, take the hydrogen, burn it, then
it leaves more energy than you needed to make the electrolysis so you
use part of it to make the electrolysis again -> infinite production
of energy, everybody is happy, the companies Total, BP, Exoon are
lost, and half of the physician sucide.
It is a way to store energy, so you use energy already produced to
create hydrogen that you use after to recreate part of the initial
energy. But you always loose some energy in transformations.
It is the same idea as a battery : transform for electrical energy
into "chemical" energy (or potential energy).
"My understanding is that it takes fossil fuels to produce?"
You can produce hydrogen from clean electricity produced by thermal
concentrator. In this case, the fossil fuel you need is to construct
and produce the electrodes for electrolysis, to produce the materials
you need to store, and so on. But you can create hydrogen from nuclear
electricity too. So depends what you do.
> (The Thermal Problem is currently having some part re-written and edited a
> little) (If you have any suggestions please comment).
> As you'll see within the essays there are many references needed too. I
> asked Eerik about them and he mentioned they are based on many figures
> repeated in different sources. Me and Eva are working on getting the
> references sourced to publish (watch the space)..
> Hydrogen:
> I've only read the wiki on hydrogen so still have lots of q's.. My
> understanding is that it takes fossil fuels to produce? Can it be produces
> without them? What about applying the comprehensive "ins and outs" question
> to it; I'd be interested to know if at the end of the process the hydrogen
> leaves us with more energy than it took to produce it? Or would it be a
> case of centralising production to the area where the fossil fuels are
> extracted and then transport the hydrogen from there, thus reducing the
> amount of fossil fuels needed globally, but still relying on them.. I
> realize with regards to hydrogen I may be asking the wrong questions here..
> My research begins.. (I'm not asking for anyone here to answer these q's I
> have on hydrogen, but if you have any useful links please post).
> Will
> On 1 May 2012 11:58, Alvaro F. Boirac <alphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Will,
>> That's a pretty strong claim, so you should point to your references.
>> The Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) claims vary a lot: 1:3 -
>> 1:20 are common things to see (but rarely less than one).
>> More info here: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3877
>> Overall I would say:
>> - Nuclear is very expensive (all costs taken into account: insurance,
>> decommissioning, desmanteling, mining, etc)
>> - Nuclear is not as reliable/safe as claimed (see my
>> tweet<https://twitter.com/#%21/Alphydan/status/197238808197074946>
>> )
>> - It means relinquishing power in favour of an extremely centralized and
>> complex organization.
>> - It assumes we can ensure a stable income / government / civilization for
>> a few hundred years ... quite unlikely!
>> - The fossil fuels needed to run it range from 5% - 40% of what a gas
>> plant uses anyway. [see refs. from oildrum
>> link<http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3877>
>> ]
>> (it also provides a wonderful baseload electricity, with very high energy
>> density/sq-meter once it's built, but not worth it in my opinion)
>> Back to small solar, wind, hydro ... and above all conservation!
>> On 1 May 2012 11:06, Will Cleaver <willclea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> From the research and papers I've read nuclear takes MUCH more fossil
>>> fuel energy to build and maintain than it can produce. And I wonder if
>>> that
>>> would not be the same for hydrogen?
>>> On 1 May 2012 10:47, kamala108 freitag <kam...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> > I'm 99% skeptical (how about improving solar concentrators instead?)
>>>> > but thought I'd post it in here incase anyone fancies shedding some
>>>> > rational, logical thoughts on the matter (again:)..
To make it more rigorous I would change the sentence "not only the
trillions in subsidies over the years" (if a plant costs ~ 2 billion and
we have 400 plants in the world then overall they cost $800bn ... as a
ballpark figure. It may be $700 bn or $1200bn ... I don't know. But if
all the nuclear reactors in the world have cost $2,000bn (2 trillions) ...
then they can't possibly have received "trillions" in subsidies. Changing
it to "tens of thousands of millions" would make it more accurate.
<< hydrogen>>
Like Denis explained, hydrogen is not a source of Electricity. It's just a
Battery (and an expensive one at the moment).
You can take electricity (or heat) and split the molecule of water: H2O
into Hydrogen and Oxygen: H2 + O.
You can then put away your (H2) molecules and store them in a "tank" (just
like a tank of natural gas, but for smaller molecules).
When you need that electricity (or heat) later, then you get the
Hydrogen(H2) and mix it with some air (O) ... and get back some Water
(H2O) and
some electricity (or heat).
For electricity you put it in a fuel cell (and charge flows when the H+
travel to meet the O2). For heat, you just let combustion happen.
So Hydrogen is just a gas to store energy (a chemical battery like Denis
said). But splitting it needs expensive electrolysis + energy (this can be
solar, wind, or fossil fuels).
On 1 May 2012 17:37, Denis Mongin <denis.mon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "I'd be interested to know if at the end of the process the hydrogen
> leaves us with more energy than it took to produce it"
> The answer is no, otherwise it will be a source of free energy (an
> other one) : you make electrolysis, take the hydrogen, burn it, then
> it leaves more energy than you needed to make the electrolysis so you
> use part of it to make the electrolysis again -> infinite production
> of energy, everybody is happy, the companies Total, BP, Exoon are
> lost, and half of the physician sucide.
> It is a way to store energy, so you use energy already produced to
> create hydrogen that you use after to recreate part of the initial
> energy. But you always loose some energy in transformations.
> It is the same idea as a battery : transform for electrical energy
> into "chemical" energy (or potential energy).
> "My understanding is that it takes fossil fuels to produce?"
> You can produce hydrogen from clean electricity produced by thermal
> concentrator. In this case, the fossil fuel you need is to construct
> and produce the electrodes for electrolysis, to produce the materials
> you need to store, and so on. But you can create hydrogen from nuclear
> electricity too. So depends what you do.
> > (The Thermal Problem is currently having some part re-written and edited
> a
> > little) (If you have any suggestions please comment).
> > As you'll see within the essays there are many references needed too. I
> > asked Eerik about them and he mentioned they are based on many figures
> > repeated in different sources. Me and Eva are working on getting the
> > references sourced to publish (watch the space)..
> > Hydrogen:
> > I've only read the wiki on hydrogen so still have lots of q's.. My
> > understanding is that it takes fossil fuels to produce? Can it be
> produces
> > without them? What about applying the comprehensive "ins and outs"
> question
> > to it; I'd be interested to know if at the end of the process the
> hydrogen
> > leaves us with more energy than it took to produce it? Or would it be a
> > case of centralising production to the area where the fossil fuels are
> > extracted and then transport the hydrogen from there, thus reducing the
> > amount of fossil fuels needed globally, but still relying on them.. I
> > realize with regards to hydrogen I may be asking the wrong questions
> here..
> > My research begins.. (I'm not asking for anyone here to answer these q's
> I
> > have on hydrogen, but if you have any useful links please post).
> > Will
> > On 1 May 2012 11:58, Alvaro F. Boirac <alphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hi Will,
> >> That's a pretty strong claim, so you should point to your references.
> >> The Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) claims vary a lot: 1:3 -
> >> 1:20 are common things to see (but rarely less than one).
> >> More info here: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3877
> >> Overall I would say:
> >> - Nuclear is very expensive (all costs taken into account: insurance,
> >> decommissioning, desmanteling, mining, etc)
> >> - Nuclear is not as reliable/safe as claimed (see my
> >> tweet<https://twitter.com/#%21/Alphydan/status/197238808197074946>
> >> )
> >> - It means relinquishing power in favour of an extremely centralized and
> >> complex organization.
> >> - It assumes we can ensure a stable income / government / civilization
> for
> >> a few hundred years ... quite unlikely!
> >> - The fossil fuels needed to run it range from 5% - 40% of what a gas
> >> plant uses anyway. [see refs. from oildrum
> >> link<http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3877>
> >> ]
> >> (it also provides a wonderful baseload electricity, with very high
> energy
> >> density/sq-meter once it's built, but not worth it in my opinion)
> >> Back to small solar, wind, hydro ... and above all conservation!
> >> On 1 May 2012 11:06, Will Cleaver <willclea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> From the research and papers I've read nuclear takes MUCH more fossil
> >>> fuel energy to build and maintain than it can produce. And I wonder if
> >>> that
> >>> would not be the same for hydrogen?
> >>> On 1 May 2012 10:47, kamala108 freitag <kam...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>> One small German village has already gone self sufficient and sells
> 30
> >>>> percent to the grid. Well done I say!
> >>>> > I'm 99% skeptical (how about improving solar concentrators instead?)
> >>>> > but thought I'd post it in here incase anyone fancies shedding some
> >>>> > rational, logical thoughts on the matter (again:)..
> To make it more rigorous I would change the sentence "not only the trillions in subsidies over the years" (if a plant costs ~ 2 billion and we have 400 plants in the world then overall they cost $800bn ... as a ballpark figure. It may be $700 bn or $1200bn ... I don't know. But if all the nuclear reactors in the world have cost $2,000bn (2 trillions) ... then they can't possibly have received "trillions" in subsidies. Changing it to "tens of thousands of millions" would make it more accurate.
> << hydrogen>>
> Like Denis explained, hydrogen is not a source of Electricity. It's just a Battery (and an expensive one at the moment).
> You can take electricity (or heat) and split the molecule of water: H2O into Hydrogen and Oxygen: H2 + O.
> You can then put away your (H2) molecules and store them in a "tank" (just like a tank of natural gas, but for smaller molecules).
> When you need that electricity (or heat) later, then you get the Hydrogen (H2) and mix it with some air (O) ... and get back some Water (H2O) and some electricity (or heat).
> For electricity you put it in a fuel cell (and charge flows when the H+ travel to meet the O2). For heat, you just let combustion happen.
> So Hydrogen is just a gas to store energy (a chemical battery like Denis said). But splitting it needs expensive electrolysis + energy (this can be solar, wind, or fossil fuels).
> On 1 May 2012 17:37, Denis Mongin <denis.mon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "I'd be interested to know if at the end of the process the hydrogen
> leaves us with more energy than it took to produce it"
> The answer is no, otherwise it will be a source of free energy (an
> other one) : you make electrolysis, take the hydrogen, burn it, then
> it leaves more energy than you needed to make the electrolysis so you
> use part of it to make the electrolysis again -> infinite production
> of energy, everybody is happy, the companies Total, BP, Exoon are
> lost, and half of the physician sucide.
> It is a way to store energy, so you use energy already produced to
> create hydrogen that you use after to recreate part of the initial
> energy. But you always loose some energy in transformations.
> It is the same idea as a battery : transform for electrical energy
> into "chemical" energy (or potential energy).
> "My understanding is that it takes fossil fuels to produce?"
> You can produce hydrogen from clean electricity produced by thermal
> concentrator. In this case, the fossil fuel you need is to construct
> and produce the electrodes for electrolysis, to produce the materials
> you need to store, and so on. But you can create hydrogen from nuclear
> electricity too. So depends what you do.
> > (The Thermal Problem is currently having some part re-written and edited a
> > little) (If you have any suggestions please comment).
> > As you'll see within the essays there are many references needed too. I
> > asked Eerik about them and he mentioned they are based on many figures
> > repeated in different sources. Me and Eva are working on getting the
> > references sourced to publish (watch the space)..
> > Hydrogen:
> > I've only read the wiki on hydrogen so still have lots of q's.. My
> > understanding is that it takes fossil fuels to produce? Can it be produces
> > without them? What about applying the comprehensive "ins and outs" question
> > to it; I'd be interested to know if at the end of the process the hydrogen
> > leaves us with more energy than it took to produce it? Or would it be a
> > case of centralising production to the area where the fossil fuels are
> > extracted and then transport the hydrogen from there, thus reducing the
> > amount of fossil fuels needed globally, but still relying on them.. I
> > realize with regards to hydrogen I may be asking the wrong questions here..
> > My research begins.. (I'm not asking for anyone here to answer these q's I
> > have on hydrogen, but if you have any useful links please post).
> > Will
> > On 1 May 2012 11:58, Alvaro F. Boirac <alphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hi Will,
> >> That's a pretty strong claim, so you should point to your references.
> >> The Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) claims vary a lot: 1:3 -
> >> 1:20 are common things to see (but rarely less than one).
> >> More info here: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3877
> >> Overall I would say:
> >> - Nuclear is very expensive (all costs taken into account: insurance,
> >> decommissioning, desmanteling, mining, etc)
> >> - Nuclear is not as reliable/safe as claimed (see my
> >> tweet<https://twitter.com/#%21/Alphydan/status/197238808197074946>
> >> )
> >> - It means relinquishing power in favour of an extremely centralized and
> >> complex organization.
> >> - It assumes we can ensure a stable income / government / civilization for
> >> a few hundred years ... quite unlikely!
> >> - The fossil fuels needed to run it range from 5% - 40% of what a gas
> >> plant uses anyway. [see refs. from oildrum
> >> link<http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3877>
> >> ]
> >> (it also provides a wonderful baseload electricity, with very high energy
> >> density/sq-meter once it's built, but not worth it in my opinion)
> >> Back to small solar, wind, hydro ... and above all conservation!
> >> On 1 May 2012 11:06, Will Cleaver <willclea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> From the research and papers I've read nuclear takes MUCH more fossil
> >>> fuel energy to build and maintain than it can produce. And I wonder if
> >>> that
> >>> would not be the same for hydrogen?
> >>> On 1 May 2012 10:47, kamala108 freitag <kam...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>> > I'm 99% skeptical (how about improving solar concentrators instead?)
> >>>> > but thought I'd post it in here incase anyone fancies shedding some
> >>>> > rational, logical thoughts on the matter (again:)..
You are right. H and D can certainly be considered fuel as well. But you
need a very very big "match" to light that fuel.
before this fuel starts burning you need to heat it to 10,000,000 degrees
approximately, and keep it at a ridiculous pressure.
In fact H, He, Li, Be, ... are all used as fuel by the sun. (it's just that
H and He are very abundant).
So yes, H, D, He, Li, Be are all fuels if you can light the match of
nuclear fusion (i.e. make two atoms come close enough that the electric
repulsion between the positive nuclei is overcome).
Not very practical for OSE however. The sun does it beautifully, so why
not use its radiation?
On 1 May 2012 22:24, Angel Imaz <an...@hiruki.eu> wrote:
> To make it more rigorous I would change the sentence "not only the
> trillions in subsidies over the years" (if a plant costs ~ 2 billion and
> we have 400 plants in the world then overall they cost $800bn ... as a
> ballpark figure. It may be $700 bn or $1200bn ... I don't know. But if
> all the nuclear reactors in the world have cost $2,000bn (2 trillions) ...
> then they can't possibly have received "trillions" in subsidies. Changing
> it to "tens of thousands of millions" would make it more accurate.
> << hydrogen>>
> Like Denis explained, hydrogen is not a source of Electricity. It's just
> a Battery (and an expensive one at the moment).
> You can take electricity (or heat) and split the molecule of water: H2O
> into Hydrogen and Oxygen: H2 + O.
> You can then put away your (H2) molecules and store them in a "tank" (just
> like a tank of natural gas, but for smaller molecules).
> When you need that electricity (or heat) later, then you get the Hydrogen(H2) and mix it with some air (O) ... and get back some Water (H2O) and
> some electricity (or heat).
> For electricity you put it in a fuel cell (and charge flows when the H+
> travel to meet the O2). For heat, you just let combustion happen.
> So Hydrogen is just a gas to store energy (a chemical battery like Denis
> said). But splitting it needs expensive electrolysis + energy (this can be
> solar, wind, or fossil fuels).
> On 1 May 2012 17:37, Denis Mongin <denis.mon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "I'd be interested to know if at the end of the process the hydrogen
>> leaves us with more energy than it took to produce it"
>> The answer is no, otherwise it will be a source of free energy (an
>> other one) : you make electrolysis, take the hydrogen, burn it, then
>> it leaves more energy than you needed to make the electrolysis so you
>> use part of it to make the electrolysis again -> infinite production
>> of energy, everybody is happy, the companies Total, BP, Exoon are
>> lost, and half of the physician sucide.
>> It is a way to store energy, so you use energy already produced to
>> create hydrogen that you use after to recreate part of the initial
>> energy. But you always loose some energy in transformations.
>> It is the same idea as a battery : transform for electrical energy
>> into "chemical" energy (or potential energy).
>> "My understanding is that it takes fossil fuels to produce?"
>> You can produce hydrogen from clean electricity produced by thermal
>> concentrator. In this case, the fossil fuel you need is to construct
>> and produce the electrodes for electrolysis, to produce the materials
>> you need to store, and so on. But you can create hydrogen from nuclear
>> electricity too. So depends what you do.
>> > (The Thermal Problem is currently having some part re-written and
>> edited a
>> > little) (If you have any suggestions please comment).
>> > As you'll see within the essays there are many references needed too. I
>> > asked Eerik about them and he mentioned they are based on many figures
>> > repeated in different sources. Me and Eva are working on getting the
>> > references sourced to publish (watch the space)..
>> > Hydrogen:
>> > I've only read the wiki on hydrogen so still have lots of q's.. My
>> > understanding is that it takes fossil fuels to produce? Can it be
>> produces
>> > without them? What about applying the comprehensive "ins and outs"
>> question
>> > to it; I'd be interested to know if at the end of the process the
>> hydrogen
>> > leaves us with more energy than it took to produce it? Or would it be a
>> > case of centralising production to the area where the fossil fuels are
>> > extracted and then transport the hydrogen from there, thus reducing the
>> > amount of fossil fuels needed globally, but still relying on them.. I
>> > realize with regards to hydrogen I may be asking the wrong questions
>> here..
>> > My research begins.. (I'm not asking for anyone here to answer these
>> q's I
>> > have on hydrogen, but if you have any useful links please post).
>> > Will
>> > On 1 May 2012 11:58, Alvaro F. Boirac <alphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Hi Will,
>> >> That's a pretty strong claim, so you should point to your references.
>> >> The Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) claims vary a lot: 1:3 -
>> >> 1:20 are common things to see (but rarely less than one).
>> >> More info here: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3877
>> >> Overall I would say:
>> >> - Nuclear is very expensive (all costs taken into account: insurance,
>> >> decommissioning, desmanteling, mining, etc)
>> >> - Nuclear is not as reliable/safe as claimed (see my
>> >> tweet<https://twitter.com/#%21/Alphydan/status/197238808197074946>
>> >> )
>> >> - It means relinquishing power in favour of an extremely centralized
>> and
>> >> complex organization.
>> >> - It assumes we can ensure a stable income / government / civilization
>> for
>> >> a few hundred years ... quite unlikely!
>> >> - The fossil fuels needed to run it range from 5% - 40% of what a gas
>> >> plant uses anyway. [see refs. from oildrum
>> >> link<http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3877>
>> >> ]
>> >> (it also provides a wonderful baseload electricity, with very high
>> energy
>> >> density/sq-meter once it's built, but not worth it in my opinion)
>> >> Back to small solar, wind, hydro ... and above all conservation!
>> >> On 1 May 2012 11:06, Will Cleaver <willclea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> From the research and papers I've read nuclear takes MUCH more fossil
>> >>> fuel energy to build and maintain than it can produce. And I wonder if
>> >>> that
>> >>> would not be the same for hydrogen?
>> >>> On 1 May 2012 10:47, kamala108 freitag <kam...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>>> One small German village has already gone self sufficient and sells
>> 30
>> >>>> percent to the grid. Well done I say!
>> >>>> > I'm 99% skeptical (how about improving solar concentrators
>> instead?)
>> >>>> > but thought I'd post it in here incase anyone fancies shedding some
>> >>>> > rational, logical thoughts on the matter (again:)..
